Sponsored Links

We don’t have the balls. That’s the reason we are losing and will continue to lose the internal war against the Islamic threat on America’s shores. We simply don’t have the resolve. Instead, we are Surrender Nation.

Take the case of Muslim truck driver Vasant Reddy. You probably haven’t heard about Reddy’s federal lawsuit against his employer, filed October 15th in Pennsylvania. That’s because just a week after the suit was filed, Schneider National Trucking of Green Bay, Wisconsin, already paid up and settled the suit to make it go away. Cha-ching. But the basis of the suit is absurd. Reddy refused to transport alcohol for his employer because he said it violates Islamic law. Read the lawsuit complaint.

Since he claims that’s the case, then why on earth did he become a trucker? He knew that a good deal of trucking involves the transport of alcohol. But, per usual, Muslims will not adapt to the regular business and goings-on of American society and American business, including trucking companies. Nope. We must adapt to Islam, instead. They demand–and get–special treatment above and beyond what is reasonable in free society that wishes to remain so. They demand one-way “tolerance” of their extremism, and yet they won’t even tolerate hauling Americans’ beer while working as truck drivers. And companies like Schneider National–surrendering so willingly and quickly–are a big part of the problem.

Memo to Schneider National: time to change your name to Dhimmi Trucking ‘R’ Us.

44 Responses

Frankly, I put the blame with your colleagues, the lawyers otherwise known as sharks… You guys (and gals) have a saying: “go for the money”. The fact is that because rarely if ever can a defendant actually recover their expenses incurred in defending themselves from such frivolous law suits it makes sense from a business POV to just pay up and have the problem disappear.

Now, if you and some of your like minded colleagues would set up a legal aid system for such defendants, doing the work “pro bono” and for what you can get from the frivolous party I can see how many in such cases would fight such ludicrous law suits.

Until that time, a prudent business would most probably seek to come to an arrangement with the “injured party”. Simple economics.

E: Nice try. But I’ve defended plenty of parties, pro bono, against Muslims. But I won’t work for free for a company that expects me to pay for their products. They are in business and so am I. In fact, I’ve done 100% more pro bono work than Daniel Pipes fraudulent “Legal Project” which has never spent a penny on an attorney to defend someone against Muslims and raised millions in the name of doing so. DS

I agree with Eliezer… It’s not a matter of resolve, it’s simply a matter of the bottom line for the business in question… Just doesn’t make sense to spend 10 times more than is paid out on the defense team and recover next to nothing, or probably nothing at all. Cheaper and quicker to pay to make it go away then coordinate your hiring practices with HR to make sure this problem is addressed during hiring.

If this were on a larger scale where business are actually losing money from, let’s say hundreds of drivers, then we will see this issue settled in court, hopefully of course with the corperation winning the suit.

I: Actually, you and Eliezer prove my point. You think a business should save money and settle with Muslims, rather than fight this and try to win in court. Neither of you have the resolve, just like this company. Principle is expensive. Not having it is cheap. . . . but only in the short run. DS

My new religion says I must work in my dirty brown streaked underwear(no pants), hard shoes and orange socks. If any employer asks me about my “religion” and tries to fire me, I’ll sue!! You can’t discriminate against my religion of underwear.

It’s not discrimination, it’s called job requirements. Years ago I interviewed for a position with a large metropolitan police department. I was asked if I was a practicing Jew, because if hired as a recruit officer I would most likely have to work on Saturdays. I didn’t take offense to the question, nor to the requirement…It’s part of the job. If I didn’t want to do it, I shouldn’t have taken the position.

WHOA, It says the company hired him with the provision he would not have to transport booze. Why the H E 2 sticks would they do that. They gave in from the beginning. COWARDS!!!
We are losing this war-and it is war. I recommend Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters.
The only people in the world who know what is going on are the Israelis. This from an Irish Catholic.

And the country with the biggest, baddest military in the world, that fought the Nazis, Facists, and the Japanese simultaneously are letting them do it. It’s not “fair” to fight a “weaker” country than you…that’s bullying and opression, even if they have declared war on you. You jst politely pretend it never happened — and then just let them go on killing you with 1,000 cuts. Where’s our Churchill, our Patton, our Romney? Instead, we have military leaders who say that lack of “diversity” would be much worse than the klling of 13 U.S. unarmed soldiers at Ft. Hood, and judges who say every case of personal jihad is just a “nutcase.”

The question of course, is did the company actually agree to this accommodation at the time of his hiring? It’s unclear from the wording of the law suit as to exactly this particular accommodation was agreed upon.

Of course, there is actually NO koranic or hadith prohibition against transporting alcohol or pig products for others. All the lawyer had to do was find an imam who would be willing to testify to this in court, or cross the plaintiff as to where this prohibition is proscribed. The plaintiff would be unable to respond, since such a thing does not exist.

Do you believe the trucking company would have won the lawsuit? I do not believe they would have won. Wisconsin is incredibly liberal and the muslim was claiming his civil rights were violated. The trucking company was probably advised that it was a no-win suit. Are they supposed to go out of business to fight this against their lawyers advice? Would you keep a client that didn’t take your advice? According to the complaint the company accommodated him and his beliefs in the past. Doesn’t that set them up for the suit?
They shouldn’t have hired the guy in the first place. I bet he never hires a muslim driver again.

They could have won if they had the guts. No one forced this guy to work against his religious beliefs. The difference between Orthodox Jews and Muslims is Jews don’t demand every one else follow their rules. Muslims do and that goes way beyond reasonable accommodation for someone’s beliefs. That’s coercion on us dhimmis while of course when no one is looking at them, they are free to do whatever they want. “Islamic modesty,” is BS fiction. The point is Muslims are not demanding equal treatment from a trucking company. They are demanding special treatment no one else will get.

well…….. playing Muslim’s advocate here Deb, (get it? 🙂 ) What if it were a Jewish driver who said “hey I can’t work on the Jewish holy days” at the time of hire and Schneider agreed to that request. Then a year later they schedule him on all the Jewish holy days and tell him if he doesn’t work them he can be fired. Would you feel the same way?

Its very simple. If Schneider has a rule that says you perform work on Shabbat, a Jew does not work for that company if he’s observant. He doesn’t ask for special treatment to accommodate his religious beliefs. In the case of the Muslim driver, he was not asked to consume alcohol on the job, just to deliver it. And he asked for special treatment that no one else in the company would get.

That’s straightforward. And my good friend Debbie can tell you the latter isn’t a bona fide discrimination case because no injury was alleged. Or proven – the company just paid up to make it go away. They just thought it cheaper to pay up than to fight an important principle.

Debbie is right. Surely, the trucking firm could have afforded to make a stand against this ridiculous pakistanian puke, instead of just caving like an Italian coalition government. Why don’t we all chip in to have Ms Schlussel litigate against the prick for “obstructing lawful commerce” or whatever?

The point being Muslims seek to impose THEIR rules on the rest of us. Hey, they can still haul beer, wine, champagne or the alcohol “Islamic modesty” supposedly forbids to them for their own benefit. They just don’t want to do that for us infidels. And that’s the difference.

He told them when he was hired he wouldn’t haul alcohol. They hired him anyway. That was stupid. I read the complaint before I commented. The complaint said that hauling alcohol made up less than 5% of it’s business. He didn’t go work for a brewery. The guy is suing with permission of the EEOC. I agree they are trying to bring sharia law here, and that is wrong. My question is how would Debbie advise a client in this exact situation? I do not approve of how the muslims want to institute sharia law in this country. They are using our laws against us in this situation. But, the trucking company hired the guy knowing he wouldn’t haul liquor. I have run a business you don’t mess with the EEOC. They’ll ruin your life. How do you guys know what this guy who owns the trucking company can afford?

Again, Debbie what would you have advised this guy to do, as a lawyer, once he is in this mess? If he came to you with this complaint and asked can I win this? I can’t afford to lose my business over this? What would you have advised?

NormanF is closing in on the real issue here. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, but only in terms of consumption. There is absolutely nothing in the qur’an or hadiths (to the best of my knowledge) about handling/delivering/selling it.

They could have won in a fair trial.

Another sham is the tried and true “dogs are forbidden in Islam” ruse. There is nothing in the qur’an that supports this lie.

They can drink it when they want. That’s why Saudis go abroad. They get to indulge in forbidden infidel vices they are not allowed at home. Hypocrisy? Perhaps – but the muttawa don’t check what they do or don’t do in bars and strip club joints in the West.

What a frivolous lawsuit. The man was fired for refusing to do what his job required him to do. If you can’t deal with a job’s requirements, then get another job. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean employers have to go out of their way to accomodate employees’ religious observances

You may be correct in the SHORT RUN, but not in the long run. People keep bringing frivolous law suits because companies keep caving in.

I know a lawyer with a large, well know auto maker for a client, and the client says, “Never settle”: even if it costs 100 time what settling would cost. That way, it sends a message to other would-be money grubbers and scum like this arab: “we won’t pay, and we’ll make you pay and waste lots of time and energy.”

“coordinate your hiring practices with HR to make sure this problem is addressed during hiring.”

This would lead to more lawsuits as you would now be using religious discrimination in your hiring practices. So since they settled once, now line up all your friends and family to let the money train roll in.

I wonder if the trucking company ships supermarket goods, given the number of goods that have alcohol as a component, and surprisingly there are many compounds that are technically classed as alcohols. The combination of a carbon atom and a hydroxyl group (-OH) makes it an alcohol. A good indication is the ‘ol’ suffix at the end of a ingredient, such as mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, glycerol, isopropanol, ethylene glycol, methanol as well as the obvious ethanol (drinking alcohol). Some products you might not expect to contain alcohols include toothpaste, ‘sugar-free’ sweets or chewing gum, Windex glass cleaner, and anti-freeze. Being a trucking company in Wisconsin, you would expect that they probably have anti-freeze in the radiators of their trucks. Hmmm. I wonder if someone should tell him that they’re carrying alcohol in the radiators as well as the wiper washer bottles. Not quite ‘just 5%’ I think.

Agreed; an employer that hires a Muslim needs to have their head examined. Islam wages war vs. nonbelievers on all fronts, including economic and cultural warfare targeting business; its just business as usual in the Islamic world, and death to the enemy by a thousand cuts. If its not an invented issue involving alcohol, then pick your Islamic issue du jour; hijabs, call-to-prayer, foot baths, prayer time, prayer rugs, halal food, etc., etc. If you are an employer and you love to sued, ruined, and humiliated; then hire Muslims.

Frist rule of someone looking for a trucking job, never believe any promises made by a recruiter. Their only concern is to get you to orientation, so they get their bonus. They have no pull with operations, or safety. Contrary to popular belief, a company driver CAN refuse a load, within reason. Dispatchers have to deal with a lot of drivers, and might forget the “arraingment” he had with a driver because he/she has a moral objection to hauling alcohol. I don’t have my HazMat, and I doubt that since I dropped that endorsment I’ve missed more loads than I have fingers and toes over the last 8 years. This was just a way to squeeze a BIG company and to get paid money one didn’t earn.

I hope the Christian truckers sue for discrimination of their religious rights if they are asked to carry any islamic symbols as cargo–you know, the rule against false prophets. Making them carry a load that might include any islamic symbol could be seen as not denouncing a hate-filled, camel-jockey pedophile false prophet.

Plain&simple If you won’t haul the freight you’re fired. There’s
at least fivehundred unemployed drivers, male and female
that will haul the freight. They don’t eat pork,and I’ll just bet they all
drink when nobody’s looking.
If they can’t handle the heat ,get out of my country!!!!
Smyledon

You left out some very important facts. When Reddy was hired, he told Schneider that he could not haul alcohol or tobacco shipments, and Schneider agreed, telling him they would accommodate his religious beliefs. The very next month, they assigned him to haul a load of beer, threatened to fire him when he pointed to his agreement with the company, and fired him anyway two days later. So the company operated in bad faith, and you didn’t bother to tell the whole story.

I think the bigger point is missed. A concern was raised from the beginning and an agreement was made. Alcohol is a very small percentage compared to the products transported. A company has plenty of different freight to transport. The problem is the company at a certain point decided to go back on its agreement a try to force the driver to haul alcohol. Some Christians ask for Sundays off and to be excused from company functions where alcohol is consumed. Gay and Lesbians want chick fil a to respect them and be more accommodating. Blacks want this, whites want that and the list goes on. I think anyone who agree to something should simply honor their word. Flip the script and get sued…justice. Personally, I would have changed Jobs because now, even though they settled, his name is a red flag when he applies for another job…

I am muslim and American and if I were a trucker with a big
truck company I don’t see why the office couldn’t keep me as-
signed to non-alcohol loads. It’s a small request requiring
dispatch to think ahead just a little more. You’re making a
“mountain out of a molehill.”